Wider Highways? Bay Area’s Smart Growth Plan Has Some Glaring Mistakes

Population growth in the Bay Area doesn’t have to mean more traffic and more suburban sprawl, if it’s planned for in a sustainable way. To that end, regional planners at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission recently released a draft of Plan Bay Area, a state-mandated blueprint for focusing housing growth over the next 25 years near transit hubs, where new residents are less likely to need a car to get around.

A high-occupancy toll lane on Highway 680. Photo: ##http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_16122920##Laura Oda, Bay Area News Group##

Sustainable planning advocates say the plan is mostly headed in the right direction, but it still falls short in some areas. One glaring mistake is that the plan calls for spending billions to widen highways to create high-occupancy toll lanes — carpool lanes that single-occupancy drivers can pay to use. Those lanes should instead be created by converting existing highway lanes, says TransForm, an Oakland-based group that advocates for better walking, biking, and transit policies on a regional and state level.

“MTC’s plan follows a 1970s-era Caltrans practice that limits Express Lanes to new construction only, without even studying the option of optimizing existing lanes,” wrote TransForm Deputy Director Jeff Hobson in a blog post. “This kind of outdated thinking is hardly the best approach to solving 21st century transportation problems – and would completely exclude some of the most congested stretches of highway from the plan.”

Because most of the revenue from HOT lanes will be soaked up to pay for the highway widenings, instead of just charging single-occupancy drivers to alleviate congestion in existing lanes, SPUR has pointed out that they will generate little money for transit improvements. Meanwhile, the new lanes will induce more demand for driving and do nothing to reduce existing congestion.

Shown in pink: Priority development areas, where housing growth will be focused over the next 25 years under Plan Bay Area. Image: MTC

“MTC’s plan continues the cycle of ‘build more lanes, attract more drivers’ by creating new options for solo drivers, but no new transportation choices,” wrote Hobson. “Over the long term, this strategy is virtually guaranteed to land us back at square one: gridlock on heavily-traveled highways.”

The MTC’s draft plan also fails to include enough new transit-oriented affordable housing to reduce the projected costs of housing and transportation, TransForm says. While the MTC set a goal of reducing those costs from an estimated 66 percent of household income for low-income families region-wide to 56 percent, the agency actually projects those costs to increase to 73 percent of household income. That means living in a walkable community would be less affordable than it already is.

“Without stronger policies in place to prevent that from happening, folks will end up living farther and farther away from places like San Francisco, and we will then encroach on our precious farmland and open space that we’re so fortunate to have in the Bay Area,” TransForm Community Planner Joél Ramos told MTC commissioners at a recent public meeting.

The MTC does expect the plan to meet its goals in six areas, including providing enough housing for all of the Bay Area’s projected new residents without any expansion of sprawl; exceeding the state-mandated 15 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions (the projected improvement is 18 percent); and reducing residents’ exposure to dangerous fine particulate pollution, which largely comes from trucks, by 71 percent. MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger also said that the spending plan for transit improvements focuses primarily on fixing existing systems first before embarking on expansions.

Yet Plan Bay Area falls short in addressing other major problems [PDF], with some even expected to get worse:

  • Whereas the MTC’s 2040 goal is to decrease traffic crashes in the Bay Area by 50 percent, they’re projected to increase by 18 percent in the plan (though, on a per capita basis, they would decrease by 10 percent).
  • Whereas the MTC aims to increase walking and biking by 70 percent, the plan is only projected to increase it by 17 percent.
  • Whereas the MTC’s goal is to increase the proportion of trips made without a car to 26 percent, the plan would only increase it to 20 percent.
  • The amount of driving per capita in the Bay Area, measured in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled, is expected to drop by 9 percent, just short of the 10 percent goal.
  • Whereas the MTC’s goal is to have all transit vehicles and infrastructure that are past their “useful life” replaced by 2040, under the plan the share of expired equipment would actually increase by 24 percent.

Heminger noted that Plan Bay Area is a “first effort” that will be updated every four years, and that the next iteration of the plan should be adjusted so that all the 2040 targets will be met.

Still, he also seemed to question whether some of the targets are achievable. “I think in a couple of these cases, we may have picked the wrong metric,” he said. “I think not having per capita standards is a very difficult thing to do when you’re growing, because the capita keeps growing.”

Heminger also pointed fingers at the federal and state governments for slashing transit funding, as well as Governor Jerry Brown’s elimination of redevelopment agencies, which “might have been the best tool we had to achieve [the] objectives” set in SB 375, the 2008 law that required each region to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (Plan Bay Area is the answer to that mandate).

Over the next few years, Heminger said MTC and Bay Area leaders will work to increase local sources for transportation funding by lobbying the state legislature to “fashion some kind of redevelopment framework,” as well as push to lower the regional voting threshold for transportation-funding tax increases from the current two-thirds majority to a simple majority.

Advocates say many of the problems in the plan could be addressed by incorporating ideas from a scenario called the Equity, Environment and Jobs Alternative — which was drafted by the MTC along with advocacy groups including TransForm, the Greenbelt Alliance, Urban Habitat, and Public Advocates, but not adopted by the MTC.

The EEJ Alternative “adds more homes, including affordable homes, in the places with the most opportunities: places with lots of jobs, access to public transportation, and good schools,” TransForm wrote on its website. “Instead of investing billions in highway expansions, invests more money in filling potholes and creating more robust transit service. It adds more incentives for cities to prevent displacement and support building more homes that people of all incomes can afford.”

“As a result, the EEJ alternative would bring us less traffic, healthier residents, fewer traffic deaths, more affordable neighborhoods, and it would do a better job of allowing our most vulnerable neighbors to stay in their homes.”

The MTC expects to adopt a finalized version of Plan Bay Area in July. Residents can submit online comments until May 16 and attend one of the remaining public meetings in San Mateo, Alameda, Marin, and Santa Clara counties.

  • Sprague

    Thank you for pointing out MTC’s long-standing and ongoing anti-environmental practice of disguising freeway widening projects as HOV-lane creation. Such massive public investments are not in the long term interest of the Bay Area. As you point out, existing select highway lanes could be dedicated as HOV lanes (at very little cost). Such a practice would rapidly promote more sustainable travel and also likely result in less surface street congestion. At a minimum, such practice should be tested prior to costly and lengthy freeway widening projects.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I notice that TransForm has a page that tells you where to comment. Written comments are due May 16, and the page has a link that lets you enter comments online. http://www.transformca.org/advocacy/rtp-scs

  • Charles_Siegel

    Incidentally, most of the online comments are from conservatives objecting to elitists trying to tell them where to live. There was a big Tea Party presence at the meetings about this plan, and that seems to be true online also.

    We could use comments agreeing with the general goals of the plan – to promote smart growth, walkable neighborhoods, and more transportation choices – and saying they should go further by adopting the EEJ alternative.

  • gneiss

    I get the feeling that traffic engineers are playing catch up with the Bay Area population demographic shifts. The plans which CalTrans are now proposing were developed 10 years ago before the economic crash, but only now coming to light because of planning and funding schedules. Instead of recycling these plans, they should scrap them, restart from scratch, and take a hard look at the demographic shifts taking place in the bay area where more people are living in higher density areas. We’re talking about billions of dollars to reduce by minutes commute times for far flung suburbanites rather than real productivity gains for the majority of people living in the core areas.

  • Hey, here’s a wild idea: how about in addition to focusing development around existing transit lines, we also increase transit service regionally so that people all over the Bay Area have options; we can also reduce congestion/pollution/auto costs/deaths by expanding service. Funding is always an issue; we really need some elected officials to own and advocate for these causes.

  • Don’t forget that HOV lanes can only take about 1400-1600 cars per hour, and they’re only useful during peak hours.

  • Ryan Brady

    Paying for faster driving seems horribly classist to me. Sort of like the 1st class lines at airport security.

  • mikesonn

    Having all our state’s transportation resources being dumped into a mode of travel which requires a private investment that averages $9,000 per year to own and operate sounds horribly classist to me as well.

  • Sprague

    HOV lanes can be useful whenever there is congestion if access to them is restricted to high occupancy vehicles at those times (for example, there has been some talk of extending the hours of the HOV lanes on I-80 in the East Bay – I believe there was at least informal consideration of having them in effect on weekends, too). HOV lanes are a real boon to transit lines routed in freeways.

  • Ryan Brady

    Well yeah, that too.

  • Clarrissa

    This is a fantastic summary of the issues that we at TransForm and our partners across the region are highlighting in this last stretch before the final adoption of the PlanBayArea.

    Our elected officials and representatives need to be reminded of the very comments you all raise. The EEJ scenario, crafted with community needs in mind, is the environmentally superior alternative because of the progressive planning policies it incorporates. I urge you to speak out at the remaining public hearings and to write comment letters by May 16th.

    Stay tuned on TransForm’s website for more ways go get involved. Here’s that link again! http://www.transformca.org/advocacy/rtp-scs

  • jh

    This makes no sense. People have paid tax for their public road, and this HOV thing is totally wrong. What we should do is use tax money to build more freeways for everyone to drive. Get rid off all HOV!!

  • mikesonn

    Except drivers [specifically] really haven’t paid their taxes to use the road.

  • Jame

    We can pave over all the farmland too to build more freeways, and we will still have congestion. The reason traffic sucks is because we do not fund reasonable alternatives to using the freeway. I don’t want my tax dollars to go to only one option, I want transportation choice.

  • Richard Mlynarik

    MTC capo-for-life Heminger sure is great at “pointing fingers”.

    The real question is why somebody who was directly responsible for the $5 billion over-budget Bay Bridge, for PBQD’s BART to the San José Flea Market, for PBQD’s High Speed Rail to Los Banos, for PBQD’s Central Subway, for the Caldecott Tunnel freeway widening, and for the catastrophic increase in VMT in the Bay Area hasn’t had the fingers of the legal system pointed his way.

  • Blue

    I agree! This HOV thing is totally wrong. You cannot charge people twice for using the same road. If singles have to pay for HOV, then they should have tax refund for HOV.

  • blue

    I don’t think so. The only reason for congestion is freeway expansion is always behind the congestion. Have effective public transportation in suburban is not realistic. You are only wasting resource on that.

  • Jame

    Every study on freeway construction shows that even when highways are widened, congestion continues. Sure for a couple weeks traffic is flowing great. But new lanes attract new riders which cause congestion. It is a never ending cycle, that’s why options are essential. And most road users shouldn’t have to use the freeway to handle daily errands. That means our cities are poorly planned and poorly zoned. [http://www.fastcompany.com/1756746/building-more-roads-only-causes-more-traffic]

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

San Mateo County Officials Insist on Failed Strategy of Widening Highway 101

|
San Mateo County officials are moving forward with plans to widen Highway 101 in a futile attempt to pave their way out of traffic congestion. The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) has dismissed a more effective and less costly proposal to avoid highway expansion by converting two existing traffic lanes to high-occupancy toll lanes, also known as express lanes. “If […]
STREETSBLOG CALIFORNIA

Caltrans Admits Building Roads Induces More Driving, But Admitting a Problem Is Just the First Step

|
Eric Jaffe, in CityLab, recently reported that Caltrans “admitted” that expanding highways increases traffic by posting a policy brief on the subject of induced demand to its website. He called it a rare admission from a state department of transportation. State DOTs, as the country’s road builders, have usually responded to congestion, and even safety […]
San Mateo County officials are desperate to widen Highway 101 from eight to ten lanes at a cost of over $300 million. Photo: Andrew Boone

Ten Lane Widening Planned for Highway 101 in San Mateo County

|
Still seeking to widen Highway 101 from eight to ten lanes, Caltrans and San Mateo County’s transportation agencies are now halfway through the required environmental review. At a community meeting on Wednesday evening, agency officials gave an update on the project [PDF] to widen the highway by adding express lanes, which allow buses and carpools […]

Today’s Headlines

|
SF Drivers Always Seem to Think Car Congestion Is Worsening, Whether or Not It is (Chronicle) More on the Mayor’s Congestion Plan (ABC, SFMTA), Bay Bridge Contraflow Bus Lane (KTVU, CBS) Google’s $6.8M Donation for Free Muni for Youth is Mayor Lee’s Biggest “Behested” Payment (Chronicle) Tearing Down the End of Highway 280 Would Open Land […]
STREETSBLOG USA

The Mythology of HOT Lanes

|
In July Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe stood on the platform of a train station in Alexandria to announce that the U.S. Department of Transportation had granted $165 million for the Atlantic Gateway project. While this is a multimodal project featuring rail, bus, and highway improvements, it was clearly the latter that most enthused the governor. At one […]